European Court fines Malta over delayed marriage registration
The European Court of Human Rights has fined Malta €6,000 for a delay of almost three years in the registration of a marriage between a Syrian-born Maltese citizen and a Russian girl.
The case involved Mazen Dadoush, who was granted Maltese citizenship in 1993 in consequence of his marriage to a Maltese national. Subsequently, on 22 March 2002 the marriage was annulled by court order as it had been found to be a marriage of convenience. However, the applicant retained Maltese nationality according to the law in force at the time.
On 30 July 2003, Mr Dadoush married a Russian national in Moscow.
In the days following 30 June 2004 he applied to the Public Registry Office to have his marriage registered in Malta but that recognition was only given nearly three years later after court proceedings in Malta.
The European Court was told that on several occasions, notwithstanding the presentation of his Maltese identity card and a Maltese passport, the Maltese Public Registry required “as a matter of policy” that the applicant submit a letter from the Department of Citizenship declaring that he was a citizen of Malta.
According to the Maltese government the authorities also noted that the requisite translation of the Russian marriage certificate presented by the applicant had not been apostilled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Moscow.
Despite his contention that the request for a letter from the Department of Citizenship did not have a legal basis in domestic law, Mr Dadoush requested the Department to issue the letter. The head of department refused to issue such a letter, allegedly replying that he was not bound to issue it then, if at all.
Following Mr Dadoush’s request, by a decision of the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts dated 31 May 2005, the Director of the Public Registry was directed to register the marriage, upon the applicant submitting his original act of marriage in Russian together with an English translation authenticated by his lawyer.
The applicant’s request remained unsatisfied notwithstanding this decision.
On 5 April 2006 the decision of 31 May 2005 was revoked by the Court of Appeal. The latter, while expressing doubts as to whether the applicant could apply to the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, held that a Maltese passport was not conclusive evidence of citizenship. Furthermore, the Director was vested with discretion to demand documents which he considered reasonable to prove the authenticity of what was submitted to him.
The Maltese court therefore agreed that the Russian certificate of marriage produced by the applicant was not sufficiently authenticated evidence satisfying the Director of the Public Registry.
On 20 June 2005 Mr Dadoush instituted proceedings before the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction. He complained that the refusal to register his marriage was in violation of his Article 8 rights alone and in conjunction with Article 14.
The Public Registry gave two reasons for the refusal to register the marriage. Firstly, the documents presented by Mr Dadoush had not been authenticated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Moscow, which was the competent authority to attach apostilles to such public documents, and, secondly, that every person who applied for registration was asked to produce a letter of citizenship.
On 2 May 2006, during these proceedings, the Head of the Nationality Department confirmed that the applicant was a Maltese citizen.
On 10 October 2006, the court rejected the application, with legal costs to be paid by Mr Dadoush.
It held that his rights had not been breached, since the Director of the Public Registry had not categorically refused to register the marriage, but had merely requested appropriate documentation. Moreover,the law did not extend to a general obligation on the part of a Contracting State to respect the choice by married couples of the country of their matrimonial residence and to accept the non-national spouse for settlement in that country.
On 11 October 2006, Mr Dadoush appealed to the Constitutional Court.
Meanwhile, on 9 November 2006, the applicant was called upon by the Registry to register the marriage. He was asked to submit the original or an authenticated copy of his marriage certificate. No further documents were requested.
On 13 November 2006 the marriage was registered on the basis of the documents originally submitted by the applicant.
On 9 March 2007, the Constitutional Court found that there had not been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. It held that the request for a “letter of citizenship” was in accordance with law as the Director of the Public Registry had to be satisfied that at least one of the parties to the marriage was a Maltese citizen. Although an identity card and a passport were prima facie evidence of nationality they were not conclusive, especially when citizenship had been obtained through registration (as in the case of the applicant) or naturalisation, both being subject to revocation according to section 14 of the Maltese Citizenship Act.
However, the Constitutional Court noted that from the witness testimony at the hearing of 2 May 2006, it was clear that the applicant was a Maltese citizen; however, interdepartmental lethargy had meant that the Director of the Public Registry only called upon the applicant to register the marriage on 9 November 2006. Thus, the Court revoked the first-instance judgment in part by ordering the costs to be shared between the parties.
Mr Dadoush in his application to the European Court, said tha the refusal to register his marriage based on a request for a letter of nationality was an interference which was not in accordance with the law and not necessary in a democratic society.
The Maltese Government submitted that the fact that a marriage did not qualify for registration according to the Civil Code did not necessarily mean that it would not be recognised as a valid marriage since section 18 of the Marriage Act would then be applicable (see relevant domestic law).
The government alleged that registration had no effects for the purposes of law. Allowing registration of marriages contracted outside Malta only served practical purposes, in that the relevant departments would not require further proof when presented with certificates authenticated by the Public Registry. They added that the Government did not contest the marital status of persons marrying abroad and that registration of the marriage was not a requirement for the application of the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act, Social Security Act or Tax Act.
Moreover, the government submitted that there had not been any interference with the applicant’s private and family life. Although there was no right to establish a family in any particular jurisdiction, the applicant was allowed to continue to reside in Malta and to cohabit with his spouse.
The fact that the Maltese authorities insisted that the conditions laid down by domestic law for the registration of a marriage celebrated by a Maltese citizen abroad had been satisfied could not amount to an interference. Indeed, once the authorities had acquired proof of citizenship through the deposition of one of the witnesses from the Citizenship Department and had verified the authenticity of the marriage certificate with the Maltese Embassy in Russia the applicant’s marriage was then duly registered.
The European Court said that it was primarily for the national legislation to lay down rules regarding the validity of marriages and to draw the legal consequences. The same was true of procedures relating to the registration of such marriages.
The court noted that apart from the issue as to whether the documents submitted by the applicant fulfilled formal requirements, the government had not given any reason justifying the need in a democratic society for refusing registration of the applicant’s marriage for over two years.
In the present case, even assuming the marriage act itself required further verification, the court considered that the need to study the Hague Convention to verify whether the marriage certificate had been apostilled or, alternatively, to carry out further checks with the relevant embassy, as was eventually done by the government, could have been conducted in a more timely manner.
Similarly, as regards the certification of the applicant’s citizenship, the court was of the view that since the applicant was in possession of a valid Maltese passport, a presumption of his Maltese nationality arose. It considered that in circumstances where a person’s nationality was certified by means of his or her passport, the onus of proving that the information contained in their passport was not conclusive of nationality shifted to the authorities.
Thus, if the authorities believed that the applicant might have renounced his Maltese citizenship, it was for them to verify the matter with the relevant department and within an appropriate time-frame, rather than to require the holder of a valid Maltese passport to prove that he still retained Maltese nationality.
However, even assuming that it was acceptable to request corroboration of such evidence in the case of citizenship obtained through registration (as in the case of the applicant) or naturalisation, the court said that it did not accept that such corroboration necessitated such a considerable delay.
It notes that the delay persisted during the domestic proceedings and verification was eventually satisfied through the witness testimony of a person working in the relevant Government department.
The Court further observed that the applicant had attempted to obtain a letter of citizenship, notwithstanding the precarious legal basis for such requirement, but the authorities refused to issue such a letter.
The European Court therefore rejected the government’s argument that the delay was due to the applicant’s decision to institute proceedings.
The Court finds that the denial of the registration of the applicant’s marriage for a period of over two years was a disproportionate interference with the rights of Mr Dadoush.
63 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mazen Dadouch
Jul 27th 2010, 21:51
Dear All:
I respect all comments were written here, but i have one easy question:
Have you ever heard a convenience marriage results 2 daughters, first one was born 2 years after i got the citizenship and the second daughter was born in the seperation period, it means after 8 years after her sister. and i got the divorce after nearly 11 years of unstabled marriage.
the untruths from the department and the authorities thrown as Dr Brincat said: to justify their abuse of power and the bad treatment to people who pays taxes in this country, any colour any nationality.
Many times this authorities tried to stop me from not going to court and save my time and money !!!
do you think if they have a proof that my marriage was a convenience marriage !
they will keep my nationality or my passport ??!!!! do you think they are stupid people working there??!!
but for sure they are NOT SMART
Regards;
Mazen
Joe Brincat
Jul 22nd 2010, 14:06
@Patrick Sacco. I double checked the judgment of the Family Court,which attributed equal responsibility to husband and wife. The Court delved deeply into the questions raised, even quoting from textbooks on Canon Law. The question of " a marriage of convenience" was thrown in by the Maltese authorities to justify their action or inaction.
Let me just point out that the Euro. Court stated that one department could get its information quickly from another. And that was before the Civil Status Department went down to Evans Buildings !!!!! What is worse is that there are blatant distortions of truth by the Public Registry. They said that they were satisfied once the official on nationality stated in Court that MD was a Maltese citizen. That was on 2/5/2006. On appeal, (6/11/2006) the Registry were still insisting on nationality. Mr Falzon was ordered to give evidence again before the Constitutional Court on 13/11/2006. After 6/11 MD was called urgently to register . I would willingly show you published documents. Or refer you to the archives of the courts. Frustration ? Worse !
Reuben J Micallef
Jul 22nd 2010, 09:55
Robert,this forum or anybody is not Malta so you cannot generalise ,people might have different opinions especially on the people you mentioned.I dont have problems with aslyum seekers from sub saharan countries that qualify for protection but I do have problems with anyone (e.g eastern european or Asians) coming to Malta over staying their visa etc etc those are the true illegal immigrants and I dont consider myself a racist if I would love that Malta would get rid of ALL the illegal Immigrants,I repeat Illegal Immigrants not Aslyum seekers.
Robert Azzopardi
Jul 22nd 2010, 11:47
Ok Reuben lets get this straight. I do not think that every Maltese person is racist, that would imply that I am as well, not to mention that I know quite a few people that certainly arent. The biggest issue in fact is not Maltese being racist but the superiority feeling that they seem to have. There is truth in what you say regarding people overstaying visas, but my problem begins only when I see the attitude of certain people in Malta towards anybody who is not Maltese. Stigmas run really deep in Maltese society. I have personally indirectly experienced and witnesssed a lot of discrimination and a lot of condescention. I do not feel the need to share it here but I can assure you that it came from peopel you least expect it from. I do not necessarily blame the people themselves but I do blame society and the political elite who choose to keep the general public ignorant on so many issues. Ultimately I'm sorry to disappoint you but the result will still be the same whichever way you look at it, the largest percentage of the Maltese population is intolerant.
Dr Joseph Brincat LL.D (2)
Jul 22nd 2010, 07:51
I wish to add the following. Reading the text of the judgment (not a summary) evinces that the crucial point was about the attitude of bureaucracy and at times absolute incompetence at times imposition of requirements on the citizen, which do not make sense. Imagine the ridiculous situation of having a Maltese identity card/passport, which should be accepted at borders of E.U. countries, but not proof enough in Malta ! This did not only happened to M.D. It happened to Maltese migrant citizens. So much so that the Minister had to issue a circular to accept Maltese passports in Malta !!!!! Read the judgment and see the tongue in cheek comments about Malta not recognising the UN Hague Apostille Convention and checking with the Maltese Embassy in Moscow. That information was and is available in two minutes on the UN Convention website. Fundamentally this case is about bureaucratic crucifixion of the individual. Put shortly: "I have the rubber stamp. I decide if and when to use it ! Your rights, Mr Citizen, are not my duty !"
Patrick Sacco
Jul 22nd 2010, 11:25
"I have the rubber stamp. I decide if and when to use it ! Your rights, Mr Citizen, are not my duty !"
I agree 100% with you Dr. Brincat on this issue. In fact, some Maltese so-called civil so-called servants simply treat us like trash. They don't help you at all, which after all is their duty!
Sometimes, you even see them sneering, almost sadistically at you as if they are taking pleasure in making your life a hell.
If Mr. M.D.'s case was a case of bureaucratic crucifixion, then it is the Civil servant/s in question who should pay the €6,000.
"The Nullity judgment was based i on lack of maturity of both parties. (Article 19(1)(d) of Marriage Act)."
To be honest I still find this somewhat hard to digest!
Dr Joseph Brincat LL.D.
Jul 22nd 2010, 06:41
Some facts : The Nullity judgment was based i on lack of maturity of both parties. (Article 19(1)(d) of Marriage Act) Not on fraud. M.D. still maintains and educates his children. After the annulment the parties were reconciled and a child was born, "unknown father". No, M.D. registered the child as his and assumed responsibility. And still does.
Eventually, M.D. married his present wife. It took ages for the Public Registry to register his marriage. The banal excuses were, for example, that a Maltese passport is no proof that one is a Maltese citizen. Another was that one must have a letter of nationality, which does not exist. Still another one was the the documents were not authenticated by the foreign office in Moscow (Moscow should follow Maltese practice !!!!). In the Constitutional Court (that is on appeal) the Chief Justice rebuked the Public Registry for its callous delay. Within a few days, MD was asked to go to the office on a Saturday. Marriage registered in 5 minutes. Constitutional Court rejected claim for compensation or violation. Case taken to ECHR (not EU)
Patrick Sacco
Jul 21st 2010, 23:23
First the E.U. has nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights and so stop saying that we must get out of the E.U.
Secondly, it is our antiquated laws which should be changed...with immediate effect!
Thirdly, if the marriage was one of convenience and if the maltese girl agreed to it knowing full well what she was getting into, then it follows that it is she who should pay the fine not us law-abiding citizens.
JOe VELLa
Jul 21st 2010, 17:56
@Joe Bonnici @Catherine Greene
Dear Joe, When I write I do so not for any political mileage but because that is my believe, I tried to hit two birds with one stone in my first mail. Thank you for your understanding I can not stop but praise our hardship to built our country unfortunately the fruit is being reaped by others.
Dear Ms Greene in my 15 years living oversea I experienced downsizing by the locals more so with direct face stale jokes, the moment they found I am RC. I rather stop there because there where those locals who understood and they used to tell me: "Why don't you go back you have a place where to go, we don't."
It is a pity if you experience such people here, I wish to apologize for their mistakes. My Goodness, you are unfair, at least we do not have whole areas like little Italy, little Greece, African quarter, Jamaican etc., they have to stick together otherwise they do not have a chance. I can tell you my lady it was hell day in day out, my only guilt was I am an RC.
Reuben J Micallef
Jul 21st 2010, 15:44
@ Maria/Robert Azzopardi
and who are you to make such a claim and to generalise? Any data to back your claims?
Robert Azzopardi
Jul 21st 2010, 18:18
Yes sure, this online forum to begin with. Just talk to pretty much anybody about sub-saharan Africans, Arabs or Eastern Europeans and you'll get bascially the same response.
Christian Sciberras
Jul 22nd 2010, 00:26
Roses are red, violets are blue. So what?
Catherine Green
Jul 21st 2010, 15:28
Almost every comment I have read on here has confirmed what I personally experienced when last in Malta as a paying tourist: The total hostility towards foreigners that some Maltese are even proud (!) to show (unfortunately for them, my husband speaks Maltese fluently and was able to understand the insults and "remarks" aimed at us) and the arbitrary chicanery of foreigners who, for example, are asked to submit documents from one Maltese department that refuses to hand these over at another.
I do pity you. I sure pity those honest Maltese who are ashamed by their compatriots' behaviour. Without tourists, where would Malta be? Only a fool bites the hand that feeds him.
Does the fact that this foreigner originally committed a crime (for which he could have been punished in a court) justify the kind of chicanery he had to endure for three years? Is that really your opinion? Then we shall spread the word!
This is precisely the reason why our family and friends shall never ever take our money to your island any more.
John Micallef
Jul 21st 2010, 15:45
Ms Green,
It's only human that a nation protects itself from such people!! Be realistic pls.
Im just coming from Italy and hostility is every were from the bus, to the church. In UK in a shopping mall i have seen 2 arests for theft in 4 hrs. What else
Such people are found every were, and for sure even in the country you come from. But unfortunatley the bad is made news & the good burried. Come to our streets in Tarxien & Paola. At any given time of the day there is always someone helping a tourist in to find the way to our lovely temples.
If you are well educated yourself pls do not re-generate when you talk, as for sure you met good people in Malta that are always ready to help?! Don't anwer me.
C. Green
Jul 21st 2010, 16:07
As I said earlier in my comment:
I DO PITY THOSE HONEST MALTESE WHO ARE ASHAMED FOR THE
BEHAVIOUR OF THEIR COMPATRIOTS.
I also don't understand what arrests for theft have to do with xenophobia.
But then I'm only a "stupid foreigner" as we have heard people call us and others on the buses - one who you can give false change back, one you can charge twice the price for market stall products than you'd charge a Maltese, one you can comment on derogatively.
Sure there is xenophobia elsewhere, too. But instead of being ashamed of officials harrassing foreigners, people here go on about the EU taking control out of their hands!
What a shame the EU will protect individuals' rights against the apparently NATURAL RIGHT of the Maltese to harass them!
J Galea
Jul 21st 2010, 20:27
Re:- C.Green i do feel sorry cause many times i've been told that the British are the worst liked nation in Malta and Gozo, why only God knows, my wife happens to be Welsh, and very often she was mistaken for English and charged the usual extra, two prices one for the outsiders and t'other for the locals. I also speak Maltese with a Canadian accent but enough to fight back and tell them what i think of them, its got so bad that now so much so that in due course we will be leaving Gozo where we have been residing for the past 3 years and go back, the only problem is trying to sell our property which is NOT EASY nobody wants to know now a days least of all the British due to the bad economy in the UK, but we just haver to sit tight till we sell up and move out much sooner then later even at a reduced figure. in otherwords we've had it with this country sorry to say, its been good while it lasted. Gharb(gozo)
Christian Sciberras
Jul 22nd 2010, 00:24
M(r)s Green, no need for pity. I'm pretty proud I don't flow like the rest...
Personally, there's always something interesting to learn even from the worst foreigners, too bad some people find it comfortable living in their own little cosmos.
l fenech
Jul 21st 2010, 13:19
Dik EU li dhalna figha. Naghtu iva naqilghu le.
Robert Azzopardi
Jul 21st 2010, 18:21
Dear Fenech, just please do us a favour, read up a bit and then comment. You don't even need extensive reading on the subject, just read the post just below yours.
Franco Farrugia
Jul 21st 2010, 19:18
@ Joe Vella et al: some points are worth clarifying. If you think that Malta will ever leave the EU, forget it. If it had to come to that, which it will not, ever, there will be so much money that we would have to pay back that we would go bankrupt completely!
Thank goodness we are members of the EU. Only troglodytes and outdated cavemen still yearn for a time when Malta will not be in the EU. I mean, listen to you old moaners ... everytime anything with Europe is mentioned, you immediately start crying foul, against the EU. There is so much ignorance in this country. So much lack of reading, so much lack of understading. Pleaaaaaaaaaaaase, I implore you, do not show off your ignorance and lack of ability at simple comprehension.
David Buttigieg
Jul 21st 2010, 12:05
Is it THAT difficult to understand? Are people THAT thick?
The European Court of Human rights AND the European Union are two completely, BUT COMPLETELY different entities.
Malta would have to comply with the ECHR whether we are members of the EU or not!
Ignoring this fact will not make it go away!
Robert Azzopardi
Jul 21st 2010, 13:02
David, unfortunately the answer is yes people ARE that THICK! ysther that or they simply choose to acknowledge basic facts. Not to mention that Maltese love populist rhetoric! In addition nobody has ever bothered explaining to them what the EU really is what the ECHR really is what the ECJ is what the Council of Europe is. The reason is also simple, everybody twists and turns things to gain political mileage. PS do not forget the other truth that Maltese always think that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
Mark Galea
Jul 21st 2010, 11:40
May I remind those that are trying to get political mileage that ALL major Maltese parties are in favour of EU.
Peter Spiteri
Jul 21st 2010, 13:12
Mr Mark Galea, then perhaps those who do not believe in European Union membership may send their message at election time through their votes as their only means of sending their message to the political parties?
P.Cassar
Jul 21st 2010, 11:15
THIS IS MINOR INCIDENT, MUCH MORE SERIOUS NATIONAL ECONOMIC DECISIONS ARE NO LONGER IN OUR HANDS.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LOSE TRUE INDEPDENCE
EXECUTIVE POWER IS IN THE HANDS OF FOREIGNERS
WORSE WE ARE FINED
FROM THE ABOVE IT SEEMS THAT MANY HAVE NOT EVEN REALISED IT YET !!!!!!
J.Spiteri
Jul 21st 2010, 12:13
Thats nothing sunshine the worst is still yet to come, i am Maltese by birth living in Holland, and i can tell you right now we moan in Malta but byJoe we don't even realize how lucky we are as comparing our country with Holland and the UK, there is a tax or a fine for just about everything under the sun, unfortunitly our little island is following their way of life....a shame for democracy and the Maltese people. In the netherlands they have a habit of giving us extra in our pensions or tax rebates then a year or so later they ask for it back in a lump sum due to their incompetance, and that is Dutch way of doing things>Dish it out with oine hand and grab it at a later date with the other, pensioners or not its the regels(law) as they say
Maria Azzopardi
Jul 21st 2010, 12:26
Malta is a racist country and if it needs to learn its lesson through fines then so be it
Robert Azzopardi
Jul 21st 2010, 13:08
maria i totally agree
Laura Falzon
Jul 23rd 2010, 13:19
agree 100% with Maria. At the school of my children there are a couple of kids that got adopted from Ethiopia. You cannot immagine how some of the children and parents they threat them !! sometimes I'm ashamed to be white .....
JOe VELLa
Jul 21st 2010, 11:01
@R. Mangion what do you mean: Mentalita purament Maltija!
What do you think you are a Scandinavian or German, you are still one of us to ALL foreigners, I know I was there!
Remember my friend, that Maltese Poet who said when the Maltese had enough they stood up and sang with pride their national item!
When the time comes I be in front!
This is not Malta we dreamed it to be in the E.U. we have become second class citizens in our own country excluding a hand full who found a gold mine in the EU. With over 4,000,000,000 euro deficit and more being borrowed, we have all new comers wanting their rights, try to ask for your rights in their countries! when things turn bad they will go home and us remain to play the fiddle.
Yes il-Maltin qamu u qhajta wahda qalu din Malta taghna!
If you do not like it find somewhere else my friend maybe you start to have freckles, I for one had enough!
Joseph Micallef
Jul 21st 2010, 12:01
This is the Malta which has been like this since 1965 - the EU has nothing to do with the European Court!!
Joe Bonnici
Jul 21st 2010, 13:16
JOe VELLa although in this case the court is not that of the eu, I agree with you that when the time comes we shall be at the forefront and reclaim our country back from the eu petty dictators colonialists for yes, we have again become a foreigners colony, this time of the eu colonialists.
R.Gauci
Jul 21st 2010, 10:52
"The case involved Mazen Dadoush, who was granted Maltese citizenship in 1993 in consequence of his marriage to a Maltese national. Subsequently, on 22 March 2002 the marriage was annulled by court order as it had been found to be a marriage of convenience. However, the applicant retained Maltese nationality according to the law in force at the time".
Mr .I Galea you are right but sadly the Law was like that at that time as it is stated above!
Just to let you know that the Law changed on don't know exactly which year, but from that time onwards people from Non EU countries which got married to Maltese have to wait five years to get a Maltese Citizenship as far as I know!
carmel callus
Jul 21st 2010, 10:13
@joe vella
The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union. It is an
international court set up in 1959 and rules on individual or State applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. In my opinion, if the Syrian obtained his Maltese citizen through 'fraud' (marriage of convenience) he should have been stripped of his Maltese citizenship.
ms g hoare
Jul 21st 2010, 10:12
Life is grant for some people before i married my english Husband we were both griled answering question after question in seperated rooms by the british high commition and i attended marrying a forigner course which now i totaly agree as it does stops people marrying people for the sake of a pass way to MALTA,i also belive that the citensinship should be given to those after 10 years of marrage so they stops abuse. AND those who separate and have no children from a marraige They should also lose the citezianship i have met alot of people that abuse the system ,Russians ,Africans ,Arabs, which are non EU members . The goverment in Malta needs to tighten the belt on the subject of
MALTESE MARRYING A FORIGNER , civil or church
R.Gauci
Jul 21st 2010, 10:44
Just to let you know that the Law changed on don't know exactly which year, but from that time onwards people from Non EU countries which got married to Maltese have to wait five years to get a Maltese Citizenship!
Marcel Dingli
Jul 21st 2010, 10:53
U ma tarax . Tighten the belt ? U l kuxjenza ta Gonzi insejtha, li skond kuxjenzthu l barranin jigu qabel il Maltin.
John Micallef
Jul 21st 2010, 10:02
Sincerament dalghodu, meta nara farsa bhal din quddiem l-EU, fejn jidher car illi fuq ogget daqshekk zghir waqajna ghaz-zufjett quddiem l-Eu minhabba haddiehor u wahalna multa. Illum nghid illi dhalna go 5 star club u ahna lanqas inlehqu ma 3 star club u qed inhallsu l-konsegwenzi!
BTW, no wounder li fl-ischolar ships hadna tkazkira quddiem l-EU.
U nhoss li il kbir ghadu gej. Li jinkixfu ix-xquq fil- finanzi fis-sod.
J Farrugia
Jul 21st 2010, 09:57
Let's get out of the EU. We cannot accept this interference in our national affairs. all these courts just because this buffoon has the dough. This amounts to dicrimination against real maltese citizens. Let's stop issuing citizenship to kikku and sika.
RMangion
Jul 21st 2010, 10:36
Mentalita purament Maltija. Tohrog mill EU ghax qed tiftahlek ghajnejk u tghidlek hemm ligijiet u trid issegwihom ?
X'Tipretendi mela, li kulhadd (inklus il-Gvern) jaghmel li jrid jew ?
David Buttigieg
Jul 21st 2010, 10:43
The EU has nothing to do with the ECHR, we have fallen under ECHR jurisdiction since 1965!!! We would still have to abide by it's rulings were we not members of the EU!
Joseph Micallef
Jul 21st 2010, 11:59
Qed jispjegawlkom li il-Qorti Ewropea m'ghandhiex x'taqsam mal-EU u ha tibqghu izzeffnu l-EU? Qed nikteb bil-Malti forsi tifhmu fl-ahhar!
Robert Azzopardi
Jul 21st 2010, 12:13
dear mr buttigieg. Forget trying to explain simple facts to knuckle heads, they just refuse to listen. You are of course absolutely right the EU and ECHR are separate entities but you will fail if you try explaining it to total injuranti. Give up my friend qed taghzaq fl ilma unfortunately
David Buttigieg
Jul 21st 2010, 13:07
@Robert Azzopardi
You make a good point!
Joe Bonnici
Jul 21st 2010, 13:46
RMangion fil-każ tal-eu liġijiet li ma jgħoddux għalina. Issa mhux il-Maltin biss qed jgħidu li l-politika one-size-fits-all tal-eu mhix tajba, imma anki barranin.
Christian Sciberras
Jul 22nd 2010, 00:20
Joe Bonnici - Jimporta ma tikkumentax minghajr ma taf x'int tghid?
D.Farrugia
Jul 21st 2010, 09:53
Make the Maltese girl who married for convenience pay not us taxpayers, afterall she must have had some kind of compensation for marrying this guy.For what next are we going to pay?Always paying for something or other!
Stephen Koludrovic
Jul 21st 2010, 10:43
Yes since she was an accomplice in the fraud.
C.Ellul
Jul 21st 2010, 09:53
huduwha issa l EU !!!
G Schembri
Jul 21st 2010, 10:25
M'ghandu x'jaqsam xejn ma l'EU!
Franco Farrugia
Jul 22nd 2010, 08:32
Dan kollu m'ghandu xejn x'jaqsam mal-UE.
Inqas kliem, u iktar qari u studju.
U iva, nehduha, l-UE. Jien qed ingawdi minnha, u int?
Kif tista' ma tgawdix, fl-UE?
JOe VELLa
Jul 21st 2010, 09:32
Wow! so we have a Syrian-born and a Russian female who did an objection with the European court for violation of human rights in Malta, and Malta penalized 6000 euros!
My goodness there are three choices to solve the problem, I assume the court took it into consideration (1) go back home to Syrian, (2) Go to Russia (3) stop inventing the wheel in our country. Why penalize me with my tax Mr. E.U.
Is this what European Union is all about, for all the people in the world telling us what to do?
Give us another chance to vote if we are in favor to remain in the E.U.!
David Buttigieg
Jul 21st 2010, 10:17
My goodness Mr Vella,
Are you really that ignorant? What in God's name has the European Court of Human Rights got to do with the EU? Malta has fallen within the ECHR jurisdiction since 1965 in it's own right. The EU is not even a member itself!
Think, THINK before you speak!
lgalea
Jul 21st 2010, 10:29
David Buttigieg presently the eu is not, but it is on the way to become a member.
David Buttigieg
Jul 21st 2010, 10:41
Agreed Laurence,
But the point made is that the EU and the ECHR (are completely different entities!
lgalea
Jul 21st 2010, 09:25
How and on what basis was Syrian born Mazen Dadoush given Maltese citizenship when he has nothing to do with Malta?
Joann Bugeja
Jul 21st 2010, 09:37
because his first marriage was with a Maltese national....
Tommy Lee
Jul 21st 2010, 09:39
Second paragraph.
The case involved Mazen Dadoush, who was granted Maltese citizenship in 1993 in consequence of his marriage to a Maltese national. Subsequently, on 22 March 2002 the marriage was annulled by court order as it had been found to be a marriage of convenience. However, the applicant retained Maltese nationality according to the law in force at the time
lgalea
Jul 21st 2010, 09:44
Joann Bugeja In that case his Maltese citizenship should have been revoked because it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that his marriage with a Maltese citizen was only a sham marriage in order to get Maltese citizenship. Now not only do we have a Maltese wife who was abandoned but a Syrian given Maltese citizenship married again to a Russian who will also get Maltese citizenship because her husband has Maltese citizenship. Maltese citizenship has been thrown to the dogs. Apart from this, was his marriage with the Maltese wife annulled and if so why was he not stripped of Maltese citizenship? If his marriage was not annulled, how can he be married again? This would be bigamy.
Stephen Koludrovic
Jul 21st 2010, 09:52
And it was a simple marriage of convenience, just money changing hands for the certificate.
IMO if the marriage was a fraud, then his citizenship was also gained by a fraud.
Sean Grima
Jul 21st 2010, 10:35
the reply to your questions is in the article itself:
1. the marriage was annulled by court order as it had been found to be a marriage of convenience: therefore no issue of bigamy as he was not married at the time he contracted the 2nd marriage
2. the applicant retained Maltese nationality according to the law in force at the time: whether we like it or not, that was the law at the time. it is not what "should" be done (i.e. in our opinion) but what the law is in fact.
Christian Sciberras
Jul 22nd 2010, 00:14
lgalea - Yep, everyone is begging me to somehow sell them my Maltese Citizenship.....
Ramon Casha
Jul 22nd 2010, 05:34
I agree that citizenship acquired based on a marriage of convenience should be revoked, but that fact is that it wasn't. Therefore he is a citizen, and the ECHR is right in its sentence - three years to register a citizen's marriage is way too long. If anything, your complaints should be directed at the law which allows him to retain citizenship when it was acquired fraudulently.